David Goldman’s Quest and the Passage of Time

Here’s a current case which, by chance, ties back to yesterday’s post.   There’s a version most recent developments here, and also a time-line, but I’ll summarize the facts.  

David Goldman and his wife, Bruna Bianchi, had a son (Sean)  in May, 2000.   In June, 2004, Bianchi and Sean went to visit her family in Brazil.   As far as Goldman knew, they were to be gone for two weeks.  

Within days of their arrival, Bianchi told Goldman they would not be coming back and that he would not be seeing his son again.   There’s an international treaty–referred to as the Hague Convention–that is designed to manage situations like this–where one parent tries to deprive another of contact with a child by fleeing to a different country.   As early as September, 2004, Goldman invoked the Hague Convention and began legal proceedings to try to regain access to his son.   

I’m going to interrupt the narrative there, for a moment to consider how things stood then, in 2004.   (Let me also add a caveat here–I do not have any special access to the facts of the case.   There’s doubtless competing versions of the events here.   I don’t know the truth and I don’t even know the competing versions of events.  I just want to use this simplified version of the facts as a jumping off point for some discussion.) 

Bianchi was clearly in the wrong in absconding with Sean.  Not only was it a violation of Goldman’s rights as a parent, severing Sean’s connection to Goldman was a terrible thing to do to Sean.  It seems to me that in September, 2004, Goldman should clearly have been entitled to bring Sean back to the US and Goldman and Bianchi should have worked out some arrangement that would have allowed each to spend time with Sean child and continue her/his parental relationship.

But that didn’t happen.  Though in October, 2005, a Brazilian court found in Goldman’s favor, Sean remained in Brazil and Goldman was not able to see him.   Indeed, Goldman did not see Sean again until February, 2009.  

In the meantime, in August, 2008, Bianchi died.  This means that Goldman became the sole legal parent of Sean.   Before her death, however, Bianchi had previously remarried and Sean remained in the care of his step-father and extended family in Brazil.  

Earlier this month a Brazilian court ruled that Sean must be returned to his father’s care in the US and yesterday the Brazilian Supreme Court refused to overturn this decision.  This is the why the case is in the news again. 

Here is the question I want to consider:   Is what would have been the right result in 2004 still the right result today?  Surely Bianchi’s conduct is a wrongful now as it was then, and just as clearly Goldman has been grievously wronged.    But nearly five years have passed, and Sean did not see Goldman at all for the vast majority of that time.   Instead, he lived with a different family– his mother, his step-father and various relatives–in Brazil.   What has changed since 2004 is not the nature or quality of the actions taken in 2004.  What has changed is the reality of Sean’s life.   What weight should we give to that reality?

The problem is an inevitable one caused by the passage of time.   It is a different facet of the same issue I discussed in the recent West Virginia case.   There the passage of time served to    the bolster the claims of  Cheryl  Hess and Kathryn Kutil to raise CMG.   And it is the problem that makes the wrongful adoption problem so difficult to resolve.  

Proper legal process and thoughtful adjudication takes time.   But the passage of time in cases regarding children can create intolerable dilemmas, as it has here.   We cannot hold a child’s life in abeyance while a judge considers law and evidence and evaluates her or his options.   The child is somewhere, living with someone, establishing ties, building a life.   Concern for the child pushes us to recognize those realities even as concerns for law and justice push us to recognize wrong-doing (such as Bianchi’s) and provide what remedies we can to those who have been wronged (here Goldman). 

Individual cases resolve these tensions one way or another, because they must.  But the basic problem remains.   It would surely help to fast-track family law cases, but I’m not sure there is any real way to keep it from recurring countless times in different guises


5 responses to “David Goldman’s Quest and the Passage of Time

  1. I think everybody can understand the dilemma in this case, but it is interesting to ask the question: how would we feel if it was the mother, and not the father, who had been deprived of her child?

    • I take it you mean to suggest that our responses, whatever they are, may be influenced by gender? I would expect that, for many of us, this is true.

      I’d hazard a guess, for example, that more people are likely to think that the mother’s original action here (taking the child to Brazil and staying there) must have had some justification than would think that had a father done the same thing.

  2. This matter is outrageous! How dare the Brazilian system keep the child from his biological father. (This reflects corrupt, third-world behavior!) We need to unite and take a stand. BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT IN ANY WAY POSSIBLE!

    God Bless you David Goldman. When the dust settles and you have time to build your relationship with your son, which you were deprived of through his abduction, your son will love you and thank you when he knows how long and difficult your challenge was.


  3. Did you mean to say Goldman was greviously wronged instead of wrong? If not what did he do wrong?

    I am curious about the reasons she left and what legal and ethical jusifications the stepfather made in keeping this man’s child.

    Did anyone allege Goldman was abusive in some manner?

    • Oopss–yes, I meant “wronged” and will change it now. Thanks.

      I’m not aware of any allegations of abuse, but surely that must be what some people are thinking.

      The possibility of abuse might explain the mother’s actions in refusing the return the child. Were that the case, we might see the mother’s conduct in a sympathetic light. In the absence of abuse the mother becomes a kidnapper, who is viewed quite unsympathetically.

      This is what makes me think cases like this function as a kind of Rorschach test. We have no evidence of abuse, as far as I know. But some are suspicious of Goldman while others are quick to condemn the mother and her family (or even the entire country). We see what we think we are likely to see.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s